BuckTurgidson:Seems to be fixed now. One of the broken parts was the checkbox for Show HTML assistant tool and Reply buttons when posting comments (requires Javascript), which could help explain what was going on.

It's a shame when an enhancement goes bad like this. I definitely appreciate the improvement, but some people are just not happy. Ever.

A pistol is a handgun with a chamber that is integral with the barrel, such as a pepperbox revolver - as opposed to a standard (single-barrel) revolver, wherein the chamber is separate from the barrel as a revolving cylinder.

A handgun is a firearm designed to be handheld, in either one or both hands. This characteristic differentiates handguns as a general class of firearms from long guns such as rifles and shotguns.

Bullseyed:odinsposse: Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.

Uh, off the top of my head, Lee Harvey Oswald?

Right, but this is sort of the point. There was a good deal of violent liberal terrorism in the 70's (most of it outside the US, with notable exceptions, i.e. the Weather Underground). There's very little now - liberal terrorism is these days mostly limited to property crimes. Conservative terrorism, on the other hand, has been remarkably violent for the last couple decades (see list from earlier post).

I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion about why that would be, but pretending that's not the case just makes you look like you don't know how to read.

Let's not build a straw man and put words in my mouth. I never said I supported one side of the other. You are arguing with yourself.

Someone said they were offended by the hate speech of "burn in hell." I pointed out that both sides often have said nasty things, both left and right. I did not specify FRC or the LGBT. That was all you. I'm a moderate, I have no horse in this race. Stop trying to make it seem like I'm supporting the FRC, it's tacky.

Kind of funny that people who don't believe in hell would be offended by being sent there. You can't expect anyone on the left to assemble a coherent logical string though.

xander450:Bullseyed: odinsposse: Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.

Uh, off the top of my head, Lee Harvey Oswald?

Right, but this is sort of the point. There was a good deal of violent liberal terrorism in the 70's (most of it outside the US, with notable exceptions, i.e. the Weather Underground). There's very little now - liberal terrorism is these days mostly limited to property crimes. Conservative terrorism, on the other hand, has been remarkably violent for the last couple decades (see list from earlier post).

I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion about why that would be, but pretending that's not the case just makes you look like you don't know how to read.

Well yeah... the lefties were blowing up cars and shooting the president when they weren't getting elected to office. Communists and socialists don't have any reason to do that anymore since we've had centrists, leftists and communists for presidents for the last 20 years or so.

Unless Obama gets assassinated by someone wearing a KKK outfit, the left is still "ahead" on the violence scale for the current era.

Bullseyed:xander450: Bullseyed: odinsposse: Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.

Uh, off the top of my head, Lee Harvey Oswald?

Right, but this is sort of the point. There was a good deal of violent liberal terrorism in the 70's (most of it outside the US, with notable exceptions, i.e. the Weather Underground). There's very little now - liberal terrorism is these days mostly limited to property crimes. Conservative terrorism, on the other hand, has been remarkably violent for the last couple decades (see list from earlier post).

I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion about why that would be, but pretending that's not the case just makes you look like you don't know how to read.

Well yeah... the lefties were blowing up cars and shooting the president when they weren't getting elected to office. Communists and socialists don't have any reason to do that anymore since we've had centrists, leftists and communists for presidents for the last 20 years or so.

Unless Obama gets assassinated by someone wearing a KKK outfit, the left is still "ahead" on the violence scale for the current era.

I saw a comment on Red State that said something along the lines of, "If this had been a pro-lifer shooting people at Planned Parenthood, it'd be all over the liberal media."

The thing is, it may not be shootings, and it may not be Planned Parenthood, but abortion clinics are subject to domestic terror all the time.

The actual violent acts have gone down since the Feds started cracking down on domestic terror after 9/11, and things like phony anthrax scares are down because of that, but it still happens all the time.

And it's not news because it happens all the time.

I know some people will say, "Oh, FFS, people aren't getting shot and bombed all the time." True, but the threat is there, and the whole point of terrorism isn't to kill a lot of people, it's to incite terror.

In case anyone's wondering, the Family Research Council has publicly condemned such acts of terror. Good for them. People may disagree with their religious views, and I know I disagree with several of their non-religious stances (example: now that we're all being forced to buy health insurance, they're pushing for the government to tax insurance benefits) but at least they're not celebrating it. It's not like we're talking about Westboro Baptist here. When you keep him off of politics, James Dobson is a pretty reasonable human being. Politics seems to make monsters of us all.

Bullseyed:xander450: Bullseyed: odinsposse: Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.

Uh, off the top of my head, Lee Harvey Oswald?

Right, but this is sort of the point. There was a good deal of violent liberal terrorism in the 70's (most of it outside the US, with notable exceptions, i.e. the Weather Underground). There's very little now - liberal terrorism is these days mostly limited to property crimes. Conservative terrorism, on the other hand, has been remarkably violent for the last couple decades (see list from earlier post).

I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion about why that would be, but pretending that's not the case just makes you look like you don't know how to read.

Well yeah... the lefties were blowing up cars and shooting the president when they weren't getting elected to office. Communists and socialists don't have any reason to do that anymore since we've had centrists, leftists and communists for presidents for the last 20 years or so.

Unless Obama gets assassinated by someone wearing a KKK outfit, the left is still "ahead" on the violence scale for the current era.

Dear god you're a moron. Kennedy was a Democrat, and GW Bush was neither centrist, leftist or communist.

LabGrrl:I was pointing out that it's a false equivalence. The thing that got FRC labeled a hate group was saying that their opponents were pedophiles.

pretty much this, and hopefully people realize this is an un-Christian position. As I said above, I think they're pretty reasonable when they stick to Christian principles. Keeping them on-task these days is damn-nigh impossible. I'm glad Dobson left, because once he got away from being a minister and into being a politician, he turned into a monster. He actually attacked Obama's position on the military, when Obama gave a speech about decreasing the size of the military, and based his argument on the Sermon on the Mount. I mean...uh...what the...

Bullseyed:Walker: I'm shocked that the Family Research Council, a "hate group" according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is causing hate. Hate begets hate. Don't put it out there if you don't want it back.

theMightyRegeya:LabGrrl: I was pointing out that it's a false equivalence. The thing that got FRC labeled a hate group was saying that their opponents were pedophiles.

pretty much this, and hopefully people realize this is an un-Christian position. As I said above, I think they're pretty reasonable when they stick to Christian principles. Keeping them on-task these days is damn-nigh impossible. I'm glad Dobson left, because once he got away from being a minister and into being a politician, he turned into a monster. He actually attacked Obama's position on the military, when Obama gave a speech about decreasing the size of the military, and based his argument on the Sermon on the Mount. I mean...uh...what the...

I actually had someone ask me what anti-gay families groups were not hate groups and I told them honestly I did not know, because they didn't cross my mind or my social sphere if they weren't inciting violence and lying about people, no matter how whackadoo their beliefs. I was told the fact that I could not name one was because I thought they all were. (my initial thought was, um, any non-'open and affirming' church?)It sort of makes me want to give up on humanity.

I don't see any difference between a hate group that says blow up the gays and a hate group that says blow up the reptilian illuminati...and I'm relieved to see that most of the young people today don't see a difference in level of insanity between those two statements, which makes me not want to give up on humanity.

theMightyRegeya:Bullseyed: Walker: I'm shocked that the Family Research Council, a "hate group" according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is causing hate. Hate begets hate. Don't put it out there if you don't want it back.

Damn those jews for causing nazis. Damn them!

It was the Jews' fault for being the 1%.

Na, that the Christians fault. Christians were not allowed to charge interest when lending money, so the Jews had to run the banks. Since the Jews ran the banks, People like Hitler and Obama hate them.

I was digging through a box of old books a few years back and found a early 1980s era reading book from when I was a kid...or maybe my sister. There was a chapter assignment in the book where the story was about a bully and the kids in the class created an elaborate scheme to leave the bully tied up if he kept beating up kids. The protagonists in the story were a couple of smart kids who managed to avoid the bully all the time, who led the little kid rebellion and got the bully his comeuppance. The story ends with a newspaper picture of the bully tied up to the flagpole and the first question is along the lines of "write a proper headline for this picture."My kid went to school post-columbine, and I know the protagonists in the story would, today, be arrested and placed in handcuffs (my son's old district has a habit of handcuffing 4th graders and being on fark for it) for 'terroristic threats' (they warn the bully tostop stealing lunch money or bad things will happen) but I could only assume the right wing rage-o-sphere would create a headline that read "Upstanding entrepreneurial student terrorized in anti-American hate crime because of his Christian views." /I know, cool story mom.

Here's what happens; Magazine fed(Auto-loader pistols) are 'usually' called automatics to set them apart from revolvers, but it IS NOT SET IN STONE, and your "logic" has to be some of the most misinformed bullshiat I've ever seen. You sound about as familiar with guns as Sarah Palin. You can't even use the '1 trigger pull = 1 shot thing in guns, because a double action revolver does not require you to cock the gun in any way to fire, so you can pull the trigger 6 (Or 5, 7, 8 or 9, depending on the revolver), times and it will fire each time without you having to do anything but pull the trigger.

But, hey, go ahead and throw out the term "libtards", I usually get accused of being a Liberal because I can't stand the current batch of republicans. Funny how this supposed "Lib" understand the very basic ideas about guns more than you do.

Cocksucker, you're not telling me anything. I've fired more rounds through Class III firearms than you could ever dream of. I own more guns than you. People routinely refer to semi-autimatic weapons as automatics. You, sir, are an idiot and a jackass.

Bullseyed:xander450: Dear god you're a moron. Kennedy was a Democrat, and GW Bush was neither centrist, leftist or communist.

Kennedy being a Democrat has nothing to do with the topic. He was killed by a communist. The topic was famous leftists who shot someone over politics.

Both Bushes were centrists. Just because you don't like that fact doesn't make it untrue. Kennedy was a centrist, and Clinton was a little left of center.

In fact, it does. The part of our exchange you left out of the quote was the bit where you said, "Well yeah... the lefties were blowing up cars and shooting the president when they weren't getting elected to office. Communists and socialists don't have any reason to do that anymore since we've had centrists, leftists and communists for presidents for the last 20 years or so."

Lefties, as it were, were getting elected to office when a communist (literally a communist, not someone with left-leaning views, but someone who actually defected to Russia) shot a Democratic president. Yes, it was political, but not in the left vs. right sense of the term, but rather in the free-world-vs-communism sense.

...and the 1st Bush was a centrist; the 2nd was not. It would be disingenuous to call Clinton "center-left" and not call Bush at the least "center-right".

Which is a roundabout way of saying you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I'm surely not the first person to point this out, and it's not my favorite thing to do. But seriously, there's no point in having an opinion that is so thoroughly malformed that it lacks even the most basic underpinnings of historical fact - especially when the tools necessary to make an informed opinion are directly in front of you.

Spade:dukwbutter: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Fully automatic weapons are very easy to get, proving you have no idea what you're talking about. All you need is a class III firearms permit. People do, in fact, routinely refer to semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns as "automatics", and, if you knew anything about guns (aside from what you read on the intertubes), then you'd know this.

No, for a Class 3 you need a FFL first and then you can become a SOT.

Unless you're mistakenly referring to a tax stamp as a "class III firearms permit". Which it isn't.

The Envoy:dukwbutter: CAADbury: dukwbutter: Shove it up your ass nimrod. You dont know shiat about guns. I grew up with them. Semi-automatic weapons are commonly referred to as "automatics". This is true of shotguns, pistols, and rifles. You wouldnt know because youre a liberal douche and have never fired a gun.

Yes. The truth hurts Caadbury. Post LOL WUT when you dont understand something. Then post some bait jpg when youre proven to be an ignorant liberal douche. Well played, obama fan!

Here's what happens; Magazine fed(Auto-loader pistols) are 'usually' called automatics to set them apart from revolvers, but it IS NOT SET IN STONE, and your "logic" has to be some of the most misinformed bullshiat I've ever seen. You sound about as familiar with guns as Sarah Palin. You can't even use the '1 trigger pull = 1 shot thing in guns, because a double action revolver does not require you to cock the gun in any way to fire, so you can pull the trigger 6 (Or 5, 7, 8 or 9, depending on the revolver), times and it will fire each time without you having to do anything but pull the trigger.

But, hey, go ahead and throw out the term "libtards", I usually get accused of being a Liberal because I can't stand the current batch of republicans. Funny how this supposed "Lib" understand the very basic ideas about guns more than you do.

Cocksucker, you're not telling me anything. I've fired more rounds through Class III firearms than you could ever dream of. I own more guns than you. People routinely refer to semi-autimatic weapons as automatics. You, sir, are an idiot and a jackass.

WTF? ITG alert. You need to be at the range in 26 minutes.

Seriously, you just made your penis look TINY. You're getting het up over an argument about gun nomenclature.

Tone it down, tough guy, this is Fark. Calling people dirty names is generally frowned upon.

Rostin:LasersHurt: Yes, the LGBT community is so well known for their angry, hateful rhetoric inciting violence. duh.

I realize you meant this as a joke, but in all seriousness, they have consistently dehumanized their ideological opponents by calling them "anti-gay," "bigots," "homophobes," "hateful," and the like for quite a long time. The Family Research Council has even been officially designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And then this Chik-fil-a thing happens. Dan Cathy, a known conservative Christian who directs a small fraction of his otherwise laudable charitable giving toward "anti-gay" causes, responds to a direct question from a journalist who works for a Christian publication by saying that he supports "traditional" marriage and the "biblical" understanding of family, and for two or three weeks solid, everyone loses their shiat and acts like he'shiatler reincarnated. Frankly, it's amazing that it took this long for something like this to happen.

Bullseyed:odinsposse: Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.

intelligent comment below:Rostin: LasersHurt: Yes, the LGBT community is so well known for their angry, hateful rhetoric inciting violence. duh.

I realize you meant this as a joke, but in all seriousness, they have consistently dehumanized their ideological opponents by calling them "anti-gay," "bigots," "homophobes," "hateful," and the like for quite a long time. The Family Research Council has even been officially designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And then this Chik-fil-a thing happens. Dan Cathy, a known conservative Christian who directs a small fraction of his otherwise laudable charitable giving toward "anti-gay" causes, responds to a direct question from a journalist who works for a Christian publication by saying that he supports "traditional" marriage and the "biblical" understanding of family, and for two or three weeks solid, everyone loses their shiat and acts like he'shiatler reincarnated. Frankly, it's amazing that it took this long for something like this to happen.

Stop dehumanizing me by calling me a racist.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x201]

Swing and a miss. If someone is actually a racist, i.e. she believes in the superiority of particular race(s) of people, then I don't really see the problem with calling her that. There have been and still are plenty of openly racist people. What I object to is describing people like Dan Cathy as homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc, without good reason to think that they actually are. Or, to put it another way, I object to taking opposition to gay marriage as infallible evidence of some kind of anti-homosexual prejudice.

fireclown:LabGrrl: I don't see any difference between a hate group that says blow up the gays and a hate group that says blow up the reptilian illuminati..

Really? Huh.

They both are arbitrarily using 'evidence' they perceive (what 'gays' look like, for example) to threaten to kill other human beings.The threatening to kill other human beings is what makes them crazy, not the whacked justification they use to determine who to threaten to kill.

I'm a moderate, so I tend to piss off twice as many people. That said, I see plenty of hateful left wing speech also. The most recent example I can think of was "I hope every Chik Fil A franchise owner and his family starves." I don't think people even stop to consider how things they say can be hateful when they're all caught up in being moral.

LGBT: "I want to adopt children and raise them to be good people who make the world a better place."FRC: "You want to pervert children and convert them to homosexuality, and you will damage them psychologically so that they become maladjusted sociopaths."

LGBT: "I want to be free of discrimination in the workplace based on my sexuality."FRC: "Your sexuality is an affront to Christian employers and they shouldn't have tolerate your presence."

LGBT: "I want to be able to care for and visit in the hospital my dying partner, and have th power to sort out their affairs since I've lived with them for so many years."FRC: "Yours is a kind that is so perverted it cannot be termed 'love,' and you are unfit to give final comfort in their last hours."

LGBT: "I hope you and your ilk starve."FRC: "You will burn in hell for eternity."

Yah. Both sides. Hateful.

oh boy i can have some fun with this one, will someone else type it up for me?

Rostin:Swing and a miss. If someone is actually a racist, i.e. she believes in the superiority of particular race(s) of people, then I don't really see the problem with calling her that. There have been and still are plenty of openly racist people. What I object to is describing people like Dan Cathy as homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc, without good reason to think that they actually are. Or, to put it another way, I object to taking opposition to gay marriage as infallible evidence of some kind of anti-homosexual prejudice.

intelligent comment below:Rostin: Swing and a miss. If someone is actually a racist, i.e. she believes in the superiority of particular race(s) of people, then I don't really see the problem with calling her that. There have been and still are plenty of openly racist people. What I object to is describing people like Dan Cathy as homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc, without good reason to think that they actually are. Or, to put it another way, I object to taking opposition to gay marriage as infallible evidence of some kind of anti-homosexual prejudice.

Now that is funny. Not just the bold part, all of it.

This story was posted hours and hours ago. There are currently 344 comments. As you can probably imagine, I've already received plenty of "clever" comments like yours telling me, without getting into specifics, how wrong or silly I am. I've also written several other comments to further clarify what I think. Once you've read and thought about them, if you have something to say that's worth my time and attention, feel free to post it.

jbuist:bulldg4life: There's no politics in play when it is a crazy person.

Bingo. If you decide you really don't like Democrats or Republicans because your Cheerios told you bad things about one of the groups it's not important which group you sided with.

Well, from an academic standpoint it's certainly interesting. The rates of difference in which side the crazy shooters are picking is astronomical, and I have to wonder if there's a common thread between all of them...

Rostin:intelligent comment below: Rostin: Swing and a miss. If someone is actually a racist, i.e. she believes in the superiority of particular race(s) of people, then I don't really see the problem with calling her that. There have been and still are plenty of openly racist people. What I object to is describing people like Dan Cathy as homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc, without good reason to think that they actually are. Or, to put it another way, I object to taking opposition to gay marriage as infallible evidence of some kind of anti-homosexual prejudice.

Now that is funny. Not just the bold part, all of it.

This story was posted hours and hours ago. There are currently 344 comments. As you can probably imagine, I've already received plenty of "clever" comments like yours telling me, without getting into specifics, how wrong or silly I am. I've also written several other comments to further clarify what I think. Once you've read and thought about them, if you have something to say that's worth my time and attention, feel free to post it.

What is there to discuss? You think a guy donating money to known hate groups, denying humans basic human rights because your religious book says they are eeevviiiilll, is "not" being homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc. You also think denying them a basic right such as marriage afforded to everyone else isn't being prejudiced because, well because dammit you say so